kwrandolph wrote:Where did you learn English? I can understand your answer if you are a non-native speaker of English. The modern English term “religion” is defined so broadly that it includes atheism as religion. This is a linguistic answer, not an answer based on opinion.

If you have problems understanding what I have written, it is in your comprehension and not in my composition. I don't care what you think the colloquial use of "religion" might imply. "Atheism is a religion," … Atheism is the lack of religious persuasion.

Obviously you don’t know the English language that well. Pick up almost any good dictionary, including the one built into the Macintosh OS, and you’ll find that “religion” is defined in such a way that atheism is religion.

I won’t argue with someone who won’t do his homework.

Karl W. Randolph.

And I hardly think that checking a basic computer dictionary for a colloquial and non-technical use of a term is doing one's homework. I have offered a more-than-adequate defense of my use of the term. I know the term intimately and have more than investigated the meanings and senses of the various types of atheism espoused in modern philosophical debate. But, as I have noticed your tendency to be, you will hold to your dogmatic positions with no flexibility or good sense. You hold your opinions very dear indeed. Atheists are allowed self-definition to the same degree that theists are. I do not dare tell you what a Christian believes or how to define a Christian, and I should expect the same sensible treatment from you. I know what an atheist is by personal experience. You shouldn't argue with that, no matter the conviction to which your pride would have you hold.

"Obviously you don't know the English language that well." Toward someone who is engaging you in perfectly intelligible English. Strike from all discussion the possibility of understanding terms differently from yourself. The ineffability of haughtiness!

Atheism is a religious view in the same way watching from the stands is a position on the baseball field. I would agree that it is a philosophical position in response to one single question, a question which does determine the beginnings of one's religious allegiance. It does not, however, possess on its own a complete worldview. It is not an answer to the whole of human experience. It answers only one question in the negative: Does one believe in a god or gods? That's the only question it touches on, so it's not a religion.

Religions are comprehensive systems that include an answer to the question of the existence of a deity in addition to a set of moral values, a general list of "dos and don'ts" and social expectations, (generally) holiday obligations, etc.

You are right when you say that atheism is not a religion in the full sense of the word. But it is a motivating force that may be just as strong, and work in the same way as a religious force; it motivates, or rather induces bias into the atheist exactly the same way that religion induces bias into the religious person.

We can talk about the meaning of Daniel's words all day long, but once we start laying them down on timetables and trying to piece them into world history to discover the identity of מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד or מָשִׁיחַ or נָגִיד (for Jewish interpretations identify a different person for each of these monikers), we go beyond where we should be going here on B-Hebrew. Again, this is my understanding of how the group wants to operate.

When we get into these types of issues, we cross over into the overlap that is generally occupied by attempts at proselytizing and missionizing. These are things that we want to avoid. I don't see how we can avoid it when discussing issues that have divided religious traditions so fiercely for generations. We're not going to bring our opponents to agreements, since how we understand these verses really comes down not to what the text says but to how our respective religious traditions have taught us to understand them.

It's like arguing about the prophecies of Nostradamus. We should focus on Hebrew and not on prophecy fulfillment. That's outside the bounds of the forum's purpose.

We agree that we should not discuss theological issues on b-hebrew. But there are more than the opposites of language and theology. We also have the discipline of history that both can be connected to language and theology. A balanced use of history related to language should not be classified as theology.

When you compare the sayings about the future of Daniel with the sayings of Nostradamus, and claim that the religious beliefs and traditions of a writer will decide the interpretation, you are distorting the issue. I have read the sayings of the Nostradamuses that are collected in one book ascribed to Nostradamus. And these sayings are very different from the words of Daniel. As a matter of fact, there are no sources older than Daniel, even if we date the book around 164 BCE, that contains sayings about the future that can be compared with the sayings of Daniel. The only possible exceptions are the five cuneiform tablets that are believed to contain prophecy ex eventu. That was the reason why I translated these tablets from Akkadian in my book and compared them with the sayings of Daniel.

The sayings of Daniel about the future are unique, and there is nothing in the ancient world that can be compared with them. I will give three examples:

Daniel 9:26 וְהָעִ֨יר וְהַקֹּ֜דֶשׁ יַ֠שְׁחִית עַ֣ם נָגִ֤ידThese words refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and I conclude that they refer to what happened in 70 CE. This means that the words about the 70 weeks must relate to a period after the destruction of the first temple and before 70 CE.

Can you find anything that can be compared to these three sayings in Nostradamus? Is it my religious faith that have led me to these conclusions? Or, would these conclusions be drawn regardless of one’s religious faith? And lastly, have I presented these three conclusions in order to proselytize?

The real issue is: Was the book of Daniel written before or after these historical events? I have used four years to collect material that can throw light on this question. The material I have presented in my book does not represent theology. I only point to the historical references of Daniel’s sayings about the future when they are related to the question regarding when the books was written. My material can be classified as philological, linguistic, and historical, and I have striven hard to curtail my personal biases.

R.J. Furuli wrote:You are right when you say that atheism is not a religion in the full sense of the word. But it is a motivating force that may be just as strong, and work in the same way as a religious force; it motivates, or rather induces bias into the atheist exactly the same way that religion induces bias into the religious person.

So, if we were to say that atheism is a worldview or an ideology, I might be inclined to agree (to more of an extent). That is, the picture of a godless universe may indeed play a big part in how people answer larger questions of meaning and purpose. My definition of "atheism" is in accord with how American Atheists sets forth their description of the term. I just don't think "religion" is the right word to use, but overall - with your caveats - we are on the same page.

R.J. Furuli wrote:We agree that we should not discuss theological issues on b-hebrew. But there are more than the opposites of language and theology. We also have the discipline of history that both can be connected to language and theology. A balanced use of history related to language should not be classified as theology.

When you compare the sayings about the future of Daniel with the sayings of Nostradamus, and claim that the religious beliefs and traditions of a writer will decide the interpretation, you are distorting the issue. I have read the sayings of the Nostradamuses that are collected in one book ascribed to Nostradamus. And these sayings are very different from the words of Daniel. As a matter of fact, there are no sources older than Daniel, even if we date the book around 164 BCE, that contains sayings about the future that can be compared with the sayings of Daniel. The only possible exceptions are the five cuneiform tablets that are believed to contain prophecy ex eventu. That was the reason why I translated these tablets from Akkadian in my book and compared them with the sayings of Daniel.

I was intentionally going to the extreme. I'm aware that Daniel is not as vague as Nostradamus, though there are some portions of Isaiah and Ezekiel that I think are along the same lines.

R.J. Furuli wrote:You are right when you say that atheism is not a religion in the full sense of the word. But it is a motivating force that may be just as strong, and work in the same way as a religious force; it motivates, or rather induces bias into the atheist exactly the same way that religion induces bias into the religious person.

Jason is free to define the particulars of his religion, but he’s not free to define the English language. That is, unless he wants to be like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland where his self-definition of language was more important than communication.

“Motivating force” is itself religion, and defines all religions. For many on this list, that motivating force is the God of the Bible. For Jason, his motivating force apparently is his atheism. True, atheism in and of itself is not the totality of his beliefs, but there are certain beliefs concerning origins, teleology, morality, etc. that are a logical outcome of the central issue of his atheism.

“Atheism is not religion” is an extreme argument I hear only from militant atheists, a statement that goes against even a colloquial use of English language.

I have worked for years as a lexicographer. In my work, my duty was not to define terms, rather to explain how terms are used. I started when I realized that definitions I found in Gesenius and BDB did not fit the usages I found before me on the pages of Tanakh.

SteveMiller wrote:So the Messiah would be cut off after 7 + 62 sevens = 69 sevens = 483 years.

It says that a מָשִׁיחַ māšîaḥ will be cut off. Is the word māšîaḥ ever used in the Bible to refer to "the Messiah" (capital-M)? Do you not see an issue with translating māšîaḥ here as "the Messiah"?

It could be translated as "an annointed one" or "Messiah". Psalm 2:2 uses the word מָשִׁיחַ for the Messiah as proven by the rest of the psalm.

Jason Hare wrote:

SteveMiller wrote:There are 3 divisions with the seventy sevens: 7, 62 and 1. The seventy sevens is the time apportioned to Israel and Jerusalem. When the Messiah is cut off after 69 sevens, that is a gigantic change and starts the time of the gentiles. When the time of the gentiles is fulfilled, Israel's final seven begins. This gap for the time of the gentiles is in almost every messianic prophesy in the Old Testament.

When the Messiah is cut off after 69 weeks. ] I think you mean "when an anointed one is cut off after the sixty-two weeks."

Yes, after 62 weeks which follows the 7 weeks, so the Messiah is cut off after 7 + 62 weeks or after 69 weeks. I was just counting time from year 0.

Jason Hare wrote:It says that there would be seven weeks until the arrive of "an anointed ruler." Then it says that after sixty-two weeks, during which the city would be rebuilt, "an anointed one will be cut off and have naught." These are two different time periods (49 years and 434 years); thus, these are two different anointed ones - one labeled māšîaḥ and another labled māšîaḥ nāḡîḏ, just as the person labled only nāḡîḏ (that is, nāḡîḏ habbāʾ in verse 26) is a different person.

At this point I will try to translate v25:And know and understand: From the going forth of the word to bring back and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah Prince (or annointed prince) shall be 7 weeks and 62 weeks. She shall return and be built, the street and moat, and in troublous times.As you can see, the way I've translated it, it is 7 + 62 weeks until messiah the prince.I understand you would translate it something like:And know and understand: From the going forth of the word to bring back and to rebuild Jerusalem until an annointed prince shall be 7 weeks. And [for] 62 weeks she shall return and be built, the street and moat, and in troublous times.How you would translate it? Hopefully we can have a lot of discussion on this list how to translate these verses.I don't know that it is allowed for you to add "for" in there, but it seems to be ok, because I need to add "for" in v27 "for 1 week".For your view to be true, then Jerusalem would not be returned to the Jews nor being rebuilt in the 49 years. Rebuilding and return would start after the 49 years. Is that a correct representation of your view?Then I wonder what in your view is the word that was given to return Jerusalem to the Jews and rebuild the city? Who gave it and when?

Jason Hare wrote:Thus, the text has these divisions:

Year 0 - issuance of a word for Jerusalem's rebuilding

Year 49 - arrive of a māšîaḥ nāḡîḏ

Years 50 until 483 - period of the city being rebuiltAfter year 483 - death of a māšîaḥ (a different person to above)

Year 483 - confirmation of a treatyYears 483 until 486.5 - appearance of peaceYear 486.5 - invasion by nāḡîḏ (different to above) and cessation of temple offeringsYear 490 - end of the war and desolation of the city

This is what is laid out in the words of Daniel 9. We must regard the time periods established in the text and not confuse the different periods.

Thank you, Jason. Good brief outline. I will flesh out my view like yours but include the historical fulfillments:The 70 weeks are the time given to Israel during this age, that is before the millennium.year 0 - Cyrus gives word to return Jerusalem to the Jews and to rebuild it. rebuilding startsyear 49 - a milestone on the way to year 483. This may be the completion of the Tanach (seal the vision in v24), or it may be the completion of the 2nd Temple (anoint the holy of holies in v24) or both, or the completion of the rebuilding of Jerusalem.year 483 - Messiah Prince is cut off having nothing when he diesyears 483 - unknown - times of the gentiles. the church age. not included in the time given to Israel. During this time the people of the prince that shall come destroy Jerusalem and the temple, and the end is desolation.Final week given to Israel:final week start- prince makes a strong covenant with the majority of Israel" " + 3.5 years - prince causes the sacrifices to cease. There will be abominations that desolate. end of final week: desolator is destroyed, millennium begins.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:Close to half of that prophesy deals with the final seven years in a description that is recognizably the Roman suppression of the Jewish revolt of 66 AD. Assuming that the date of 73 AD (it could be off by a couple of years) is the correct date for the end of the Roman conquest (yes, the Hebrew indicates a conquest) that indicates that the start of the 490 years was 417 BC.

This is certainly the standard Jewish interpretation of the text - and it agrees with the segments of time in the prophecy as I've laid it out above. The problem is that it doesn't agree with the standard chronology and the years allowed in the Persian period, which are more years than allowed in the prophecy. Jewish timetables of this period have fewer years, and they (not surprisingly) agree with the times in Daniel's prophecy. (Perhaps this is by design?)

Thanks for the explanation

Jason Hare wrote:

SteveMiller wrote:The 2nd 1/2 of v26 is the Roman destruction of Jerusalem:26b ... and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary ...This event is outside of the 70 sevens of time given to Israel because the messiah is cut off after 69 sevens and the 70th seven begins with the start of the next verse.

Again, this is not how the text reads. In fact, it could be that the anointed one that is here cut off is the high priest at the time of the besiege of Jerusalem, who was removed from power and killed (IIRC).

I don't think a high priest is ever referred to as ‎ מְשִׁ֣יחַ. They are anointed, and are called ‎ הַכֹּהֵ֧ן הַמָּשִׁ֛יחַ, not maschiach alone.

Jason Hare wrote:

SteveMiller wrote:I do not think that v27 fits the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. v27 takes place after v26 because it starts with a waw-consecutive.

I don't think we should be talking of vav-consecutives in prophetic text. This isn't narrative. It's not exactly applicable.

I think we follow the same grammar rules for prophesy as for prose. There are some differences. Prophesy is often given as a riddle, so the prediction might not be not stated in a straightforward way.

Jason Hare wrote:

SteveMiller wrote:The temple has been rebuilt in v27 because sacrifices are being offered for the first 1/2 of the seven years.How can you make v27 fit the Roman destruction of Jerusalem?

Desolation poured out on the city. Cessation of the temple offerings. There aren't a lot of details in the passage, but they certainly match what we know about what happened at the destruction of Jerusalem. What do you think doesn't match?

I don't know much on the history at 70 AD. I was hoping someone would tell how v27 fits what happened then, and I could check it out. But since you ask, here's what I think: (& thanks for asking)I don't think there was a strong 7 year covenant.The sacrifices were not stopped in the midst of a 7 year covenant.The sacrifices were stopped because the temple was destroyed. v27 sounds like the temple is still standing, and the sacrifices were stopped and replaced with abominations.The desolator was not destroyed

Jason Hare wrote:If we're giving our opinions on this chapter, I guess I may as well join in.

At this point I will try to translate v25:And know and understand: From the going forth of the word to bring back and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah Prince (or annointed prince) shall be 7 weeks and 62 weeks. She shall return and be built, the street and moat, and in troublous times.

I have the following comments on the words מָשִׁ֣יחַ נָגִ֔יד. The word מָשִׁ֣יחַ is an adjective with the meaning “anointed,” and נָגִ֔יד is a substantive meaning “leader; ruler.” It is clear that the adjective does not modify the substantive, thus giving it the meaning “the Anointed Leader,” because the adjective occurs before the substantive and not after it. Thus, מָשִׁ֣יחַ נָגִ֔יד represents an appositional phrase, “Messiah, the Leader.” Corroborating this is the fact that in verse 26 מָשִׁ֣יחַ occurs alone. The word מָשִׁ֣יחַ occurs 38 times in the Tanach. In eleven instances מָשִׁ֣יחַ is followed by YHWH so the meaning is “YHWH’s anointed.” In four instances מָשִׁ֣יחַ is preceded by כֹּהֵ֣ן (“priest”), so the meaning is “the anointed priest.” In 21 instances מָשִׁ֣יחַ is modified by “my,” “his,” or “your,” with the pronouns referring to God. Only in Daniel 9:25, 26 is מָשִׁ֣יחַ standing alone without any determination. The word נָגִ֔יד occurs 43 times, and in most cases it refers to the ruler over Israel. The word can also refer to a person who is a leader of a lower rank, for example in charge of the temple. In the versions we find the following renderings of מָשִׁ֣יחַ נָגִ֔יד:Theodotion: kristou = Christ.The Latin Vulgate: Christum ducem = Christ, leader.The Ethiopic translation: Krestos negus = Christ (as a proper name), king.The Syriac Peshitta: ܡܫܝܚܐ ܡ݁ܠܟܐ = the anointed, king.

The data above shows that the expression מָשִׁ֣יחַ נָגִ֔ידis in Daniel 9:25 is unique: it refers to one particular person who does not need any presentation in the form of a determining word of some kind.

SteveMiller wrote:At this point I will try to translate v25:And know and understand: From the going forth of the word to bring back and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah Prince (or annointed prince) shall be 7 weeks and 62 weeks.

You have the period in the wrong place. “And 62 weeks…” is connected to what follows, namely the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

That means that there were 49 years after Nehemiah was commanded to rebuild Jerusalem until משיח נגיד with the 62 weeks being a separate time line.

Why even have two time lines, if only one is meant?

SteveMiller wrote:She shall return and be built, the street and moat, and in troublous times.As you can see, the way I've translated it, it is 7 + 62 weeks until messiah the prince.

That “+” is not supported by the language used.

SteveMiller wrote:… I understand you would translate it something like:And know and understand: From the going forth of the word to bring back and to rebuild Jerusalem until an annointed prince shall be 7 weeks. And [for] 62 weeks she shall return and be built, the street and moat, and in troublous times.How you would translate it? Hopefully we can have a lot of discussion on this list how to translate these verses.I don't know that it is allowed for you to add "for" in there, but it seems to be ok, because I need to add "for" in v27 "for 1 week".

“For” is an acknowledgement of one of the differences between Hebrew and English.

SteveMiller wrote:

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:Close to half of that prophesy deals with the final seven years in a description that is recognizably the Roman suppression of the Jewish revolt of 66 AD. Assuming that the date of 73 AD (it could be off by a couple of years) is the correct date for the end of the Roman conquest (yes, the Hebrew indicates a conquest) that indicates that the start of the 490 years was 417 BC.

This is certainly the standard Jewish interpretation of the text - and it agrees with the segments of time in the prophecy as I've laid it out above. The problem is that it doesn't agree with the standard chronology and the years allowed in the Persian period, which are more years than allowed in the prophecy. Jewish timetables of this period have fewer years, and they (not surprisingly) agree with the times in Daniel's prophecy. (Perhaps this is by design?)

Thanks for the explanation

Jason Hare wrote:

SteveMiller wrote:I do not think that v27 fits the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. v27 takes place after v26 because it starts with a waw-consecutive.

I don't think we should be talking of vav-consecutives in prophetic text. This isn't narrative. It's not exactly applicable.

I think we follow the same grammar rules for prophesy as for prose. There are some differences. Prophesy is often given as a riddle, so the prediction might not be not stated in a straightforward way.

I agree with Jason here, that the same rules of grammar apply. There are plenty of examples in Tanakh of a “waw-consecutive” referring to a concurrent action. The most famous that I can think of right away are found in Proverbs 31:11–31.

SteveMiller wrote:I don't know much on the history at 70 AD. I was hoping someone would tell how v27 fits what happened then, and I could check it out. But since you ask, here's what I think: (& thanks for asking)I don't think there was a strong 7 year covenant.

There’s no mention of a “strong 7 year covenant” in the verse. The word הגביר is a verb with the basic idea of overpowering, mastering. So a translation could be “And seven years he (the people mentioned in the previous verse) will cause a covenant for many to overpower …” It took seven years for the Roman people to put down the Jewish revolt and to reimpose Pax Romana (covenant) onto the land.

“And half a week he caused sacrifices to cease …” When Cyrus allowed Jews to return to the land, sacrifices were re-instituted even before the second temple was built. But when the Romans destroyed the second temple, the destruction was so complete that sacrifices have effectively ceased. The destruction was so complete that even the site of the first and second temples has been forgotten, so that sacrifices cannot be re-instituted on the same site unless it’s rediscovered. (Ancient threshing floors were flat land. The temples were built on a threshing floor. There’s no way that the Dome of the Rock can be on the site of the ancient Jewish temples, because it was built over a pinnacle of rock.)

I’m not sure of the exact meaning of the remaining two sections of the verse—did the Roman soldiers have a vile emblem on their shoulders?

SteveMiller wrote:

Jason Hare wrote:If we're giving our opinions on this chapter, I guess I may as well join in.

I have the following comments on the words מָשִׁ֣יחַ נָגִ֔יד. The word מָשִׁ֣יחַ is an adjective with the meaning “anointed,” and נָגִ֔יד is a substantive meaning “leader; ruler.” It is clear that the adjective does not modify the substantive, thus giving it the meaning “the Anointed Leader,” because the adjective occurs before the substantive and not after it. Thus, מָשִׁ֣יחַ נָגִ֔יד represents an appositional phrase, “Messiah, the Leader.” Corroborating this is the fact that in verse 26 מָשִׁ֣יחַ occurs alone. The word מָשִׁ֣יחַ occurs 38 times in the Tanach. In eleven instances מָשִׁ֣יחַ is followed by YHWH so the meaning is “YHWH’s anointed.” In four instances מָשִׁ֣יחַ is preceded by כֹּהֵ֣ן (“priest”), so the meaning is “the anointed priest.” In 21 instances מָשִׁ֣יחַ is modified by “my,” “his,” or “your,” with the pronouns referring to God. Only in Daniel 9:25, 26 is מָשִׁ֣יחַ standing alone without any determination. The word נָגִ֔יד occurs 43 times, and in most cases it refers to the ruler over Israel. The word can also refer to a person who is a leader of a lower rank, for example in charge of the temple. In the versions we find the following renderings of מָשִׁ֣יחַ נָגִ֔יד:Theodotion: kristou = Christ.The Latin Vulgate: Christum ducem = Christ, leader.The Ethiopic translation: Krestos negus = Christ (as a proper name), king.The Syriac Peshitta: ܡܫܝܚܐ ܡ݁ܠܟܐ = the anointed, king.

The data above shows that the expression מָשִׁ֣יחַ נָגִ֔ידis in Daniel 9:25 is unique: it refers to one particular person who does not need any presentation in the form of a determining word of some kind.

Thanks very much, Rolf. So not only is מָשִׁ֣יחַ נָגִ֔יד in v25 unique, but even ‎ מָשִׁ֖יחַ in v26 is unique in that it is stand-alone.

Why is ‎ מָשִׁ֖יחַ considered an adjective rather than a noun?

Regarding the adjective preceding a noun, I did a search in BibleWorks for adjectives preceding nouns just in Daniel. I found only 2 others: Dan 8:23 ‎ ‎ וּֽבְאַחֲרִית֙ מַלְכוּתָ֔ם כְּהָתֵ֖ם הַפֹּשְׁעִ֑ים יַעֲמֹ֛ד מֶ֥לֶךְ עַז־פָּנִ֖ים וּמֵבִ֥ין חִידֽוֹת11:23 ‎ ‎ וּמִן־הִֽתְחַבְּר֥וּת אֵלָ֖יו יַעֲשֶׂ֣ה מִרְמָ֑ה וְעָלָ֥ה וְעָצַ֖ם בִּמְעַט־גּֽוֹיIs there anything special about the adjectives preceding the nouns here?